4 ms·

I think that there’s a question not being addressed here. The things you’ve pointed out to be “taking away” your individual freedom are things that you have to

I think that there’s a question not being addressed here. The things you’ve pointed out to be “taking away” your individual freedom are things that you have to put up with when you’re choosing to live in a society or a civilization, i.e. in togetherness with other people who do not have the same preferences as you. This scenario is inherently rooted in conflict, and everyone has to make compromises if everyone wants to live peacefully. If you don’t want to have to put up with other people then your only choice is really to just live alone in a forest where you can exercise your near-total individual freedom. So since there seems to be a genuine binary between living a life of compromises in a society and living freely but like an hermit, aren’t we actually advocating for the dissolution of society when we’re talking about exercising our individual freedoms? Government and laws are, after all, just manifestations of how people in a (democratic) society want to run their society, but it’s not like we can draw a clear line on where government control and regulation should end, no? Because not even all democratic societies are the same.

frenchtoastto 5y ago
This sounds like the same point that people bring up about privacy, i.e. "if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be afraid". While the point is valid the issues are more based in the principal of the matter.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 3grdlurker 5y ago
  But that’s the point—there will always be people who do want to live in a state where something is being done about CSAM down to their personal devices, while there will always be people who don’t. So which of the two groups are objectively right to have things done their way? It’s neither, and whoever wins on the policy level is a matter of politics, not of objective moral correctness. So then since you can’t always have it your way when you’re living in a society, isn’t it that the only other option to have things your way is for you to live alone, all consequences entailing? Therefore, isn’t the argument for the full exercise of individual freedom an argument for the dissolution of society and ergo government? Because this topic seems to me about the full realization of individual freedoms and not making any compromises at all.
- eitland 5y ago
  > "if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be afraid". While the point is valid the issues are more based in the principal of the matter. An important detail here. Technically you are kind of correct, but sadly there are plenty of examples of people who should have nothing to hide who have rightly had reasons to fear. I.e. many people have reasons to fear without having anything to be ashamed of.

frenchtoastto 5y ago

This sounds like the same point that people bring up about privacy, i.e. "if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be afraid". While the point is valid the issues are more based in the principal of the matter.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
3grdlurker 5y ago
But that’s the point—there will always be people who do want to live in a state where something is being done about CSAM down to their personal devices, while there will always be people who don’t. So which of the two groups are objectively right to have things done their way? It’s neither, and whoever wins on the policy level is a matter of politics, not of objective moral correctness. So then since you can’t always have it your way when you’re living in a society, isn’t it that the only other option to have things your way is for you to live alone, all consequences entailing? Therefore, isn’t the argument for the full exercise of individual freedom an argument for the dissolution of society and ergo government? Because this topic seems to me about the full realization of individual freedoms and not making any compromises at all.
eitland 5y ago
> "if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be afraid". While the point is valid the issues are more based in the principal of the matter. An important detail here. Technically you are kind of correct, but sadly there are plenty of examples of people who should have nothing to hide who have rightly had reasons to fear. I.e. many people have reasons to fear without having anything to be ashamed of.